If there is any truth to these allegations, Viehbacher may not be as available as he seems: "A new lawsuit claims the recently ousted CEO of Sanofi and other executives at the huge drugmaker conducted a scheme in violation of federal law to funnel tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks and other incentives to get the company's diabetes drugs prescribed and sold." http://www.cnbc.com/id/102235774?
Disgruntled does not necessarily mean wrong. The 2 guys from GSK who were whistleblowers were disgruntled as well, but they weren't wrong. Let the courts decide.
She also claims about $1 billion is missing! That part should be proved/disproved fairly quickly. This isn't the Pentagon, Sanofi's accountants must have records somewhere.
Vie archer is impressive his lack of a morale code have now started a path of destruction at 2 companies. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-05/former-sanofi-ceo-viehbacher-says-kickback-allegations-baseless.html
This guy was hip deep in the fraud at GSK TOO. Just look at the Lauren Stevens trial transcripts and you will know. He belongs in Prison.
Just keeps getting better Sanofi Is Accused of Using Kickbacks to Encourage Prescribing Diabetes Drugs According to the complaint, on October 29, 2014, shares of Sanofi fell $2.85 or almost 6% to close at $45.22 on the news of the termination of Chief Executive Officer, Christopher A. Viehbacher. On December 3, 2014, it was reported by various media outlets that a whistleblower lawsuit had been filed by a former Sanofi paralegal. This suit alleges that Viehbacher, along with other executives, violated federal law by funneling tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks and incentives to get the company's diabetes drugs prescribed and sold. This lawsuit also alleges that Viehbacher was dismissed due to his involvement in the illegal activities, such as kickbacks and incentives, which went on for many years. The complaint also alleges that Sanofi: (i) was making improper payments to healthcare professionals in connection with the sale of pharmaceutical products in violation of federal law; (ii) lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (iii) as a result, the company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.